GOUTHAM SURANA Vs. K KESAVAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the applicant in the original application which has been filed for interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent, his men, etc. , from interfering with the possession and operation of the vehicle TNX. 5455 by the applicant on the route Cuddalore to Villupuram and the 1st respondent from operating any other vehicle on the route in question pending disposal of the suit. R. Jeyasimna Babu, J. , on 26. 8. 1994 has granted interim injunction for a period of fourweeks and ordered notice to the respondents. THE 1st respondent has filed Application No. 5173 of 1994 for vacating the interim injunction.

(2.) THE short facts which are relevant for the disposal of the above applications are as follows: THE 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle TNX. 5455. According to the applicant, the 1st respondent has borrowed certain amounts from M/s. H. Mahaveerchand Kothari and executed hire purchase agreement in favour of the said M/ s. H. Mahaveerchand Kothari in respect of the vehicle in question. THE 1st respondent has also borrowed amounts from the applicant on various dates as hand loan. Since the 1st respondent could not repay and discharge the amount due under the hire purchase agreement executed in favour of M/s. H. Mahaveerchand Kothari, he approached the applicant and requested him to come to his aid. THE applicant helped the 1st respondent and the total liability as on 19. 11. 1993 was arrived at Rs. 9 lakhs. It is agreed between the parties that the vehicle TNX. 5455 will be handed over to the applicant for the purpose of operating on the route by transferring the said vehicle and that the applicant will adjust the net collection towards his dues after deducting all expenses in respect of the said vehicle. THE said agreement was entered into at Madras on 19. 11. 1993. Stamp paper was purchased and the said arrangement was confirmed by the 1st respondent in writing on 19. 11. 1993. THE 1st respondent has also executed a hire purchase agreement in favour of the applicant at Madras on the same day in respect of the vehicle in question for Rs. 9 lakhs. THE said vehicle was handed over to the applicant and he is in absolute possession of the same. An endorsement of hire purchase was also made on 27. 1. 1994 in the r. C. Book. THE 1st respondent agreed to pay the entire amount and in the meantime will not disturb the possession and operation of the vehicle by the applicant and will not also replace the said vehicle.

(3.) THE only point that arises for consideration in these applications is, whether the applicant is entitled to an order of injunction restraining the 1st respondent, his men, etc. , from interfering with the possession and operation of the vehicle TNX. 5455 pending disposal of the suit"